I am not wanting to mock the usefulness of university photography departments. I just want to understand what is going on with placing more emphasis on description and analysis than communication through visual imagery.

Would you think the same if you were studying Medicine or Law at university?
Reading and study are huge components of both. And there is ample real-world experience as time goes on. Same with Visual Arts at Universities. Mine was heavy on reading but also had a lot of darkroom, legal, business and photographic work.

A few years ago, I was sent a photography publication from a University that will remain nameless. It had a glossy cover and I think it had about 86 pages of text and contained about three images. Am I missing something here?

I feel your pain, Luckily you didn't sign up.

3 out of 86 pages for a visual medium is pretty ...well, non visual.

But you also have to remember that there are two types of photographers (probably more) , the artsy types that are visual, and the engineer types that are far less so.

The old right brain vs left brain. The first is very visual, hates number and formulas and is drawn to the visual aspects of photography almost exclusively.

Then there is the engineer types who love the theory, formulas, loves tinkering with gadgets, and is less likely to pursue people photography.

Obviously there are crossovers.

That's the reason we have great product, architectural and scenic photographers and on the other hand we have great portrait, photojournalists and people photographers.

Again, obviously there are crossovers.

But a people photographer would be miserable setting up a food shot for two days and a architectural photographer may hate to do weddings.

Since neither the contents nor the point of the publication have been revealed to us, I would hazard to guess that it was less technical and more art history/art theory or criticism than anything else.

Clive - under the same vein, should A.D. Coleman be stripped of his accomplishments considering he is a respected critic and has published much re photography; although, I believe, he does not photograph himself? I sense a level of disregard for educational/critical offerings in this thread? This thread is quite vague to me, it doesn't seem like from the beginning there was a deep enough 'ethical/philosophical' observation for us to discuss/debate? What are you trying to impart?

Clive - under the same vein, should A.D. Coleman be stripped of his accomplishments considering he is a respected critic and has published much re photography; although, I believe, he does not photograph himself? I sense a level of disregard for educational/critical offerings in this thread? This thread is quite vague to me, it doesn't seem like from the beginning there was a deep enough 'ethical/philosophical' observation for us to discuss/debate? What are you trying to impart?

I apologise for the vagueness of this thread, as I realise I am treading on dangerous ground and may upset some people with what has been said thus far. However, I just want to understand what is going on in photographic education with placing more emphasis on description and analysis than communication through visual imagery.